In the beginning, God intended for you to pursue passionately His divinely ordained purpose for your existance. He designed that purpose for you and you for that purpose.
Your talents and fundamental characteristics, when fully developed and applied correctly, are the perfect tools for your specific assignment.
You experience a richness and fulness of life that cannot be improved on when you are pursuing this destiny, regardless of obstacles, pain or opposition.
People find themselves attracted to you because you radiate peace and contentment. You have meaningful relationships that are deep and strong. You accept the failings of others because you are happy with yourself, including your own weaknesses and shortcomings. You have been forgiven, you embrace your own forgiveness, and you forgive others.
In the beginning, God created you for a fulfilling destiny. Are you moving toward it?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Resources to help you achieve your destiny!
15 comments:
WORDS - thanks for your comment. You seem to have worked out a distinct belief system in terms of interpreting Christianity (desert God created by males and embraced by weak humans, etc). Not going to argue with you about that as I am sure you are as convinced about what you believe as I am about what I believe.
My personal experience is that my faith in God and the sense of being connected to a divine purpose is deeply enriching... and what is wrong with living a rich life?
WORDS - I take it from your closing comments that you may not post again, which I hope is not the case. I find the contrast in our two very different views of the world very enlightening. The juxtaposition of two very different things usually creates something new and interesting.
Did I really argue? In fact, I stated explicitly that let's not do that. I did ask a question.
My intention in stating the question was to contrast my experience with one of the assumptions that is essential to your case. I believe you are stating that belief in God is necessarily a sign of refusal to "grow up" and therefore constrains a person from the full experience of true reality. So I was saying, "I don't feel restricted or less 'grown up' than someone who believes there is no God."
The "grow up" theme is there in the subsequent comment, too. The idea seems to be that by exercising faith in God that a believer creates a "GRAND" parent... which is, apparently, by definition, a bad thing.
Hmmm... I have human parents that I honor and love. I respect them and to some extent it can even be said that I obey them. Does that somehow mean that I myself am not an adult?
Actually, honoring and respecting my parents fully is a sign of "adultness". We are all familiar with the teen struggle to assert independence resulting in conflict with parents and how that psychological growth ultimately brings a person around to a better relationship with parents in a way that is more interdependent. Kind of the Mark Twain thing: "I was amazed at how much my father learned between the time I was 18 and 24."
So, I am not trying to prove God exists by making the statements above... that is the part that I am suggesting we not "argue" about. I am pointing out that your reasoning depends upon the concept that faith in God is a psychological attempt to create a kind of UeberParent... which appears to me to use the concept of parent as a necessarily bad thing... and I don't see that having parents is a bad thing naturally speaking or spiritually speaking.
In fact, the offer of Christ is wholeness based on a restored relationship with our Heavenly Father. There is no virtue in being a broken, angry human, alone in the universe with no real meaning and purpose.
Is this a proof that God does not exist: that it is psychologically superior to embrace aloneness and meaninglessness?
If it is, WOW! Bummer. Pretty dismal view of the world.
Wow... I feel a little overwhelmed by your passion for the subject. Honestly. (Not making light or anything of that nature... just reflecting that your comments are pretty intense.) What experience have you had that drives such depth of conviction? I am interested in your lifestory as it relates to the development of your philosophy if you are ever inclined to share it.
As far as intellectual enlightenment, you present your view passionately, persuasively, articulately and often with an entertaining and clever turn of phrase. I like that even if I don't agree with the thesis you are advocating. Like the whole peas analogy in your last post... pretty graphic.
Beside that, I have to admit it is a challenge for me to see if I can answer your arguments to my own satisfaction. If I can't, well, then intellectual integrity would demand that I convert to your point of view, right?
So, that's the kind of stuff I meant when I spoke of "enlightening". I didn't mean it in the more mystical sense.
As to my assumption (according to you) that persons who disbelieve God are necessarily miserable, alone, etc. No, I don't assume that. Not at all.
People who choose to disbelieve God probably fall into a whole spectrum of life circumstances. And non-believers have as much access as anyone to the various true opiates of the masses (consumerism and materialism, drug and alcohol and other addictions, brainless entertainment media, and a thousand other distractions, self-delusions, and self-centered lifestyles and philosophies).
I imagine that some non-believers are pretty happy with their life circumstances, others are miserable, and a good many are self-medicated by the myriad methods I just enumerated.
I actually understood the "alone and miserable" theory to be an underlying assumption of yours! Seriously. You seem to be saying that people believe in God to escape the presumably negative circumstance of being without a God. So that means being without a God is by your definition negative.
I take your argument to be, "Look, give up your silly dependence on God which you rely on to protect you from reality." Can you not see that your argument (if I have stated it correctly) presumes that the alternative to faith is a reality that is threatening?
You are the one who is saying the motivation for faith is this opiate of escapism. I am not saying that - you are. Therefore it is your assumption that life makes people feel the need for "medication" - an opiate. Your belief that life is tough enough to make people like me need an opiate is the reason you give for me believing God.
OK, so much for that. You raise another interesting point in which you are making false assumptions about my beliefs...
I definitely believe in personal responsibility for my life decisions. I don't accept your false dichotomy that faith by definition relieves me of personal responsibility. In fact, it increases it.
The concept that God has a MasterPlan for my life does not relieve me of the responsibility to discover it, understand it, initiate it and embrace it regardless of the consequences. Biblically, it means that I may have to encounter, face and endure some realities that are not all that pleasant.
Prime Example: Jesus discovered that God's will for Him includedthe necessity of a prolonged and painful death by crucifixtion. He embraced The Plan and followed it through. His example has been followed by tens of thousands of Christian martyrs. When they refused to recant and thus faced the dark unknown of death and entered it boldly and without fear (which is the historical account of thousands of believers), was it the mark of the timid and weak? Of course not. It was an act of courage. Yet this is what multitudes of Roman Christians - and thousands since even til now - have done.
My faith demands personal responsibility; it does not relieve me of it.
WORDS:
Good to hear from you.
OK. I offer this story as a response. Please bear with me. It’s not that long but will require a few paragraphs to tell.
My mother raised me in church… a conservative, Bible-believing church. I grew up going to Sunday School. Church for me at time was simple: we played sports and games on Wednesday nights, we learned Bible verses in Sunday School and sat with my family in the main sanctuary for an hour on Sunday mornings. Not much more to it than that.
About the age of 10 or 11, I sat one Sunday morning with my family in the church waiting for the service to begin. Sunshine was filtering through the windows. There was a moment of remarkable stillness and quiet. I sensed a calmness and peace. I thought, “I like this feeling and I sense that Something is here.” I mention this incident because it is one of my earliest memories of having some conception of God as present and real, rather than as merely a concept or a word in a Bible verse.
About the age of 12 or 13, I attended a church camp. Nothing special about any of it, including the evening chapel meetings, except for one night. The speaker presented a simple message – I don’t recall any details except that the general theme was missionary work. At the end, with little fanfare and no music and without a particularly emotional appeal, he invited boys to come forward if they wished to dedicate their lives to Jesus.
I became very aware of a Presence all around me. This experience profoundly moved me. I felt as if something were squeezing my heart. I wanted to go forward… felt compelled to go forward but was afraid of what my buddies would say. Then I say that several of them were already on their way. So I followed and prayed “the sinner’s prayer” and went home to be baptized in my home church.
During the teen years, I drifted away from church. There was quite a “Jesus movement” among some of the kids during my senior year but, for whatever reason, I steered clear of it. There was a nagging thought, though, at the back of my mind, that I knew the reality of God. I left home immediately following graduation from High School, even before I turned 18. Lived a party life style for a while. Semi- or Unemployed. Just drifting.
I moved into a downtown house that rented out bedrooms and the tenants shared the kitchen and common areas (and the common cold). Interesting place. At first, the party chemicals of choice were marijuana and alcohol but as months went by we had some pretty bad characters hanging around. Big-time drug dealers.
One of the more mysterious characters living in this house was “Brick”. A little older than most of us. He kept to himself and unlike some of us, went off to work everyday. Some kind of electrician, he said.
One day Brick pulled me and my room-mate aside. He said, “Hey guys, there’s going to be a big drug bust in town tomorrow. The reason I know this is because I work for the Federal government. The kind of electrical work I do is known as “wire-tapping”. I’ve been living here undercover. I know you guys aren’t big-time drug users but here’s the deal. I don’t like what is going on in this house. If I were you, I’d move. Soon.”
The next day a local Doctor was arrested for selling heroin out of his office. Front page news. The next night local police began patrolling the street in front of our house about every hour.
(HISTORICAL NOTE: This was way back in the 70’s and we had a little lottery going on back then called “The Draft”. Winners got an all expense paid round trip to a resort area know as “Viet Nam”.)
Anyway, in light of the situation and since my draft number was coming up, I enlisted in the Army just to change the scenery and to try and get some direction in my life.
Five months later, I found myself stationed in Germany. I got off the bus at my new base. It was a cold, gray winter day. One soldier walked up to me very briskly and asked, “Are you the new medic?”
“Yeah.”
“Great!”, he said with this big grin. “I’m your new roommate!”
I took a look at this guy. That goofy, happy grin. I groaned to myself. I knew that smile. This guy was some kind of religious nut for sure.
In fact, as we were walking up the stairs to our barracks room, he turned to me and said, “So, what kind of church background do you come from?”
Anyway, about two weeks later, one January night in an army barracks in Germany, I sat on the edge of my bunk, staring out at the starless sky. Behind me, my Christian room mate David was pacing the floor talking to me about God and the Bible and Jesus and stuff.
I wasn’t really listening. Just tuned him out. As I sat there, though, something began to happen to me. A gripping in my chest. A sense of a Presence with me. An inner voice that I cannot compare exactly to any other experience. This thought formed distinctly and clearly in my mind:
“Bud, it is your time to meet the Lord.”
So, with David still pacing and preaching behind me, probably oblivious to what has really happening, I bowed my head, prayed and gave my life to the Lord.
Since then, I have learned a lot more about scripture and religion, etc. I’ve read the comparative religion books and listened to atheists lecture about the non-existance of God. The fact of the matter is that arguments and reasons can be given for believing that God exists and on the other side as well.
The believer cannot prove that God exists. The Bible does not attempt to prove that God exists; it merely asserts that He does.
The atheist cannot prove that God does not exist. Most don’t try to prove that He does not exist; rather, they just assert that there is no compelling reason to believe He does exist.
I think, WORDS, that is essentially where you and I are at in this conversation. So I would like just to make one or two more points and then pose a question.
God is not found through reason. He is found by revelation. He reveals Himself. However, that does not make faith in the existance of God unreasonable.
It is just as reasonable to think that God created the world as it is to think that the Prime Reality is matter and that matter just simply always was without beginning.
It is just as reasonable to think that the order of the universe was created by a Divine Mind as it is to think that the massive order of the universe evolved by random chance.
It is just as reasonable to believe that the 20,000+ ancient manuscripts which detail the existance of Jesus and testify to his life, death, burial and resurrection are accurate accounts as it is to believe that it never happened (or any of a hundred other alternative explanations).
I believe God and trust Him. I have had personal experiences that are consistent with the view Scriptures present of God: that He is loving, kind, powerful, just, redemptive, gentle.
Many of the philosophical problems you present (how can a loving God allow suffering, for example) have been around for centuries. One side says, “A loving God can’t exist; such a God would not permit suffering.” The other side says, “Free will. Suffering exists because God has allowed the human race to choose it’s own pathway, and we have chosen a way that is destructive, harmful and damaging. Our choice. There is nothing unloving about allowing choice.”
So, since I view things this way and believe that God can only be known by revelation (although I hold that the revelation is available to all who want it), I respect your right to choose not to believe.
However, I reject the assertion that my belief is not a reasonable conclusion.
Finally, you have really taken me to task for my comment about "no virtue to being alone and miserable in the universe", etc. I’m not sure why this has been such a … raw point?
Perhaps the comment does reveal some kind of bias on my part that I’m not aware of. On the other hand, as I reflect on all that you have written, it is fair to say that your tone could be read as strident and angry. So I do wonder – what has happened in your life that has molded your very strong opinions on this subject? Or are you going to tell me that your apparent deep sense that religion is a massive source of injustice is merely an intellectual proposition , arrived at entirely through rationality and independently of your life circumstances?
What’s your story? Why do you think so deeply and feel so strongly about this?
Pink Elephants! You do have a way with WORDS.
But to the Elephants…
If a book asserted that Pink Elephants were responsible for all mankind’s actions, there would be no facts that supported that claim. Hence, any faith in the assertion would be irrational.
However, the Bible has nothing to say about Pink Elephants. It actually asserts that a divine being exists, He created an orderly universe, human kind is on a path of self-destruction, a Saviour has entered the world, and that persons can be changed for the better by turning to faith in Him.
None of those assertions is of itself empirically verifiable. (It’s not empirically verifiable that my mother loves me, either. But I kinda think she does.) There is reasonable evidence of all those Biblical assertions. There are facts that can reasonably be interpreted to support those statements.
This isn’t “circular reasoning”. Just consider the following.
In the American court system, a jury is instructed to find the defendant guilty only if there is no “reasonable doubt”. Juries can even find a defendant guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence as long as there is no reasonable doubt.
Take as an unfortunate and gruesome example the case in the news right now where Mark Hacking is accused of killing his wife and disposing of her body. At this point (as far as I know), the body has not been found.
Even if they don’t find the body, there will likely be enough evidence to convict Hacking of this horrible crime. No one alive saw him do it. No corpse to empirically verify a dead victim. But the facts and the evidence will likely overwhelmingly support the belief that he did it… sufficiently so that a jury will determine there is “no doubt”.
Same with the Biblical assertions I mentioned above. Has anyone seen God? No, He cannot be empirically verified. But if this incredible universe exists, isn’t it at least one reasonable explanation to conclude a Creator designed it?
The Bible asserts that human kind is on a path of self-destruction… do we even have to try to demonstrate this? May I suggest CNN for my latest arguments on the subject?
A Saviour has entered the world. The historicity of Jesus is undeniable. The meaning of his life, the fact of his resurrection can be argued of course. Remember, though, I am only arguing that it is reasonable to believe; that there are facts which a reasonable person could construe to support the thesis.
People for millenia have been transformed by encountering Christ. (It’s getting late and I am a little too tired to develop the argument. In short, the fact that some bad things have been done in the name of religion does not cancel out the Mother Teresas, the drunkards who have sobered by Christ, the addicts who have been delivered, the broken homes that have been restored, etc)
All of this is factual. No, I can’t see God and I can’t empirically verify that He exists. But faith in the God of the Bible is reasonable for the reasons I have given above.
Questions. Do you know everything? (That comes across as a smart-alec type question but I mean it in a merely rhetorical tone.) What if God is in the arena of that which you do not yet know?
If some or even many have abused “religion”, does that of itself disprove the existance of God?
How can the premise that God exists be dismissed simply because the universe is orderly and subject to rational observation / science? Where is the connection to say that one excludes the other?
If my child fell on a fence, I would take her immediately to a hospital while praying. If she lived, I would thank the Doctors and thank God. If she died, I would thank the Doctors for their efforts (unless they were deficient in their duties) and I would grieve… and as soon as I was able, I would thank God for the time that I had with her. Rationality and faith are not mutually exclusive. There is no fence between them.
I'm not committed to accepting your point of view unless you convince me but I am committed to understanding it. That's why I am curious about significant events that may have led you to your perceptions. Then again, it's none of my business. And you have stated your reasons for not writing about that. But I am still curious.
Also, and I may be reading you wrong - after all, written communication is limited in that there is no body language to observe, facial expressions, etc - but I have the impression you feel insulted by the "angry and alone" remarks. I apologize; I meant no disrespect to you personally.
Don't need any particular kind of response... just interesting WORDS!
I'm a little disappointed. I think you glossed over my arguments in your last post. Your a priori assumption is that the existance of God is absurd; hence, we have no common ground as I state that the existance of God is at least a reasonable possibility.
How much faith to place in that possibility is a matter of choice.
But I pose this question: if I choose to believe and it turns out I was wrong, so what? If you choose not to believe and turn out to be wrong, you've really missed out on something.
By the way, how do you know Mark Hacking confessed to his two brothers? Were you there? No, you consider it reasonable to trust those who reported the event and you believe it to be true.
Faith is a good thing. Life gets complicated without it. You just need to be careful who you trust.
I know God and I trust Him. (Don't jump on the 'just because you say it doesn't make it so' train. I know it doesn't make it so. You saying 'Well that's impossible because God doesn't exist' doesn't make the non-existance of God so, either.}
The fact that you have the opinion that I'm deluded and state so to me is not "new data". It's your opinion. Your assumption.
Hey, have you read Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell?
WORDS: Will reply in a day or two.
Bud: I'm a little disappointed. I think you glossed over my arguments in your last post.
Words: Which ones? I’d be happy to take the time to address them fully.
Bud: Well, pretty much all of them. But look, your a priori assumption is that the existance of God is absurd; hence, we have no common ground as I state that the existance of God is at least a reasonable possibility.
Words: The only assumption here, is that you assume I’m assuming. I claim it has no evidence and is rife with contradictions and "wives tales" if you will that hold no water. Do you eat ham, bacon, pork chops or ribs?
Bud: Yep, I pretty much eat all of them. You know, Dr. Atkins.
Words: Ya know you could REALLY envoke the anger of God for that one (according to your good book that is):
Bud: For what? Being on Dr. Atkins?
Words (quoting scripture):
Lev 11:7 - 8 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.
Sure, some primative man saw that pigs wallow around in their own "filth" so to him, with his limited DATA assumed that such creatures must be bad to eat-
Did you know that elephants "bathe" in their own feces? In fact they stick their trunks into it so deeply, that it plugs their nostrils up- then they forcefully SPRAY
the feces onto their young and their FRIENDS- why? Well, the average uneducated quick to form a solution person, might assume that its cause they are DUMB animals....but in reality- SCIENCE shows us that they are forming immunities within their "family" of elephants from various illnesses by exposing one another to such treatment.
Not bad for dumb animals huh? And they didnt require some book to tell them it was good for them.
Bud: Ok, before we get the whole zoo involved, let me comment. First… you really have a thing for elephants, don’t you? I mean, last week you were talking about pink elephants on flying carpets. (You know I am just kidding you,right. But seriously...)
Anway, no, I didn’t know about the whole bathing in feces thing. Clearly, you know more about elephants than I do. And isn’t it neat how God didn’t need a book to create each species with instincts necessary for survival?
Anyway, back to the pigs and dietary laws. You cite this dietary law as support for your contention that the Bible is “rife with contradictions and wives’ tales.”
An alternative explanation is that God wanted his people at that particular point in time to enjoy a “no pork” diet for health reasons or other purposes.
But back to my point. It is possible that God exists – I say “possible” because the existance of God is not empirically verifiable. So, how much faith to
place in that possibility is a matter of choice. It is in fact a choice that every human must make… believe or dis-believe.
Words: The difference is- YOU place "faith" into "something". Thats why its NOT called truth or fact- its called faith and belief.
Data isnt gathered logically by one’s beliefs- one has a hypothesis, one investigates the hypothesis - gathering data to support one’s idea--then one either
confirms it is true or proves it is not.
Bud: Sounds like the scientific method to me. Perfectly applicable to… well, science.
The physical universe. Matters that are empirically verifiable. Not applicable to God because He transcends the material universe. He is not empirically verifiable. Did I say that yet?
You want to confine God to a box no bigger than the physical universe. Sorry your conception is so small!
Words: Using logic and reason we can safely say that the Bible’s "proof" of God is based on lack of education and experience.
Bud: I said previously that the Bible does not try to prove the existance of God. The Bible assumes the existance of God. The perspective of scripture is that only a foolish person would gaze into the starry night sky and not conclude that a Creator made this world. But go ahead and make your point…
Words: Man once believed that killing women and accusing them of being witches was doing God’s bidding. They would tie heavy stones to them and sink them into
ponds and lakes and say that if she was a witch she would float to the top- and if she was innocent then God would take her. So, "damned" either way. And they
got their thrill kill.
Bud: Uh… some ancient people were superstitious… and mean… Religion can be misused. People weighted down with stones don’t float. Ok, I agree with all of
that. But check this out…
If you choose not to believe and turn out to be wrong, you've really missed out on something.
Words: THATS it? Thats all you have to defend your stance? That if you’re wrong "Then you'll be sorry!"?????
Bud: You have a real knack for hearing what you want me to have said rather than what I actually said. I didn’t say, “If God exists, you’ll be sorry.”
I said, “If God exists, you’ve really missed out.” Key word: missed. Synonyms are “neglected” and “lost”. As in, had an opportunity but lost it. Could have lived
a lifetime in communion with his/her creator but didn’t.
Words: So better stand on the CHANCE of being right? Or rather in your mind- the certainty of being right (despite proof) so MIGHT as well play it safe? Thats it?!
W
ell hell..... why not believe in ALL The religions Dieties, what if "God" is really Brahma or maybe Esaugetuh Emissee ("master of breath") in the Creek native american language. Why not cover your bases and believe in ALL of them. Being your philosophy revolves around no proof and only "faith".
Why not believe that it was "Gods" PLAN for the doctors to be deficient in their duties if your child dies under their "care".
Can you not see your own conflict?
Bud: Just because God can’t be empirically verified does not mean He can’t be known. He is known by revelation. He reveals Himself. He has broken into the physical universe in the person of Christ. He has spoken to us in scripture.
So, that is how I know the difference between truth and falsehood in matters of theology.
Wow... it’s late and I’m tired… let’s carry this on at a later date… OK?
We pick up the conversation at a point where I am trying to make the point that something can be known by faith.
Bud: You mentioned the Hacking murder case out in Utah earlier. So, by the way, how do you know Mark Hacking confessed to his two brothers?"
Words: One does not KNOW but one has REASONABLE evidence to support the CLAIM that he did – that’s the difference. If they’d just said he confessed, that in itself would be suspect- but considering the DATA that already exist....
Your claims have no evidence to support them. NOTHING- all you have is so and so... centuries ago said that it occurred despite NO proof at all- and you CHOOSE
to believe it- the LIKLIHOOD of God being real is not comparable to Mark Hacking allegedly confessing to his own flesh and blood whom it would appear would have no reason to lie when such a lie would HARM their brother.
Bud: The apostle’s of Jesus had no reason to lie. In fact, they lost their lives on account of their eyewitness testimony of the resurrection of Jesus. This is pretty strong evidence that they believed the gospel they were preaching: that Christ died, was buried and rose again.
But in regard to the Mark Hacking case -- you consider it reasonable to trust those who reported the event and you believe it to be true.
Words: It is not the same-
Bud: It is the same. You are taking someone’s word for something.
Words: As I said, ONE can REASONABLY assume it is true- based on the data. Where is your data? Do you have, for example, the numerous AUTHORS who penned the Bible on hand? If so THEN THAT is a reasonable comparison from which to base your argument- THOSE persons could be interviewed (were they alive) and have demands made upon them to show evidence supporting their claims.
Such as the cross jesus was nailed to, surely that would contain some of his DNA. Or perhaps the thorns from the wreath upon his head, surely that would have his blood on it. SOMETHING that we could examine and say- "Well, look at this- the DNA in this blood is unlike anyone else on the whole planet-I can not even explain what I'm seeing here- this is outside the realm of humans, outside of man"....this is data we COULD add to the list of the POSSIBLE evidence of God.
What about the spear that pierced his side. You mean NO ONE KEPT THE FAMOUS SPEAR? What? But no, you have NO data at all outside of someone’s book…
Bud: Actually, the historicity of Jesus is well documented. He existed. The only legitimate question is, “Did he rise from the dead as his disciples claim?”.
Words: …What someone said is true about "person A" or in your case, "God"----without existing DATA to add to the process of validating the claim is is nothing more
than "He said / she said".
BUT if someone says something about "person A" and there is already DATA existing that points to what someone said about "person A" being true then we
have to reasonably believe the information given to us regarding "Person A".
Now, what EVIDENCE or DATA do you have to collaborate the "testimony" in the Bible?
Bud: The universe… the heavens declare the glory of God and the earth shows His handiwork…
Words: Well, isn’t it interesting that NO ONE thought to SAVE the cross he was crucified on or his crown of thorns or his "loin cloth" or swabs of his blood- NOTHING as a momento or some weird physical reminder of that occurred- \hell, people have been known to take locks of HAIR from rock stars and the like – even at their funerals! But no- nothing, nothing exist at all to show that GOD is a reasonable concept. The most unique "man" on the planet and no one kept a \physical reminder of him? An autographed photo......NOTHING?
Do you see my point? I may use humor here and there but I think we are both serious about this discussion.
Bud: Again, the historicity of Jesus is well-documented. No, there were no paparazzi in 33 AD so there are no fotos. But let’s face it… you are just posturing…
If I had the spear and the cross and DNA samples and the 33 AD Jerusalem
Enquirer you still would not believe it because you are committed to atheism as a construct of reality. You are only open to matter and physical reality.
But I promised you the last word this week, so go ahead.
Words: I sincerely hope that you are not responsible or have never been responsible for Jury Duty. It would truly sadden me to know that someone’s FUTURE depended
on your belief in what occurred- when you yourself are so EASILY swayed without a single, iota- of proof beyond what you color with your programmed upbringing. Its not your fault mind you- its the churches for grabbing hold of you at such an early age- but then that is how they do it. .Offer the biggest possible
candy in the world.....the everlasting chew of God...like some magical carrot in front of the Donkey. Only your carrot is invisible, has no taste, no texture and no value outside of its ability to manipulate, distract and promise you what you want to hear.
Bud: Jury duty? God is not on trial. Does HE need to prove that He exists? Why would He need to do that?
But I promised you the last word.
Words: The check is in the mail right? Oh you didn’t get it yet? Must have gotten lost....I will send you another one....right away......just keep waiting and smiling and believing. It will come. Soon.
Believe.
WORDS:
Ok, let’s just deal with the implication that anyone who believes in God is schizo. Check out the following quote.
"Let me begin with five traditional arguments for the existence of God. It may seem an unlikely starting point for this topic, but I think you'll see as time goes on that these arguments keep coming up. I'm not going to comment right away on whether these arguments are valid or not, but I will state them because throughout astrophysical literature these arguments are often referred to:
1. The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
2. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
3. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
4. The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
5. The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being."
The writer of this quote goes on in the article to support belief in God. Who is this schizophrenic person?
According to U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991...
Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, `So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
You can read his entire article at
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html
By the way, you can also find online the second part of this two-part lecture given by Dr. Schaefer. In the second part, he says...
"We shall begin with the philosophical aspects of A Brief History of Time, which really explains why it has sold so many copies. Stephen Hawking has stated, 'It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief.'
When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, '...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity.,\' He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions."
Three scientists: Schafer, Hawking and Newton. All confess belief in a diety.
If I am schizophrenic, I am in good company. But as I said, the existance of God is a reasonable proposition.
"But I promised you the last word."
In reference to the following:
"Words: The check is in the mail right? Oh you didn't get it yet? Must have gotten lost....I will send you another one....right away......just keep waiting and smiling and believing. It will come. Soon.
Believe."
Yeah Bud- thats a common trick the church tries to use. Trying to use my own words against me to prove your point eh, etc...
Oh, come on, get real. I wasn't trying to "trick you" or use your words against you. It was my attempt - feeble, perhaps, but gimme a break - my attempt just to be a tiny bit clever by creating a little irony. You know - you are the athiest-type but your last word is "believe". Get it? It's a joke.
Lighten up!
I take what you are writing seriously or I wouldn't bother to respond. But you know that...
And, yes, I am a true believer... as you are. You believe that the limit of your physical senses is the sum of reality. I believe there's more beyond the horizon.
The existance of the universe is evidence of the existance of God.
Evidence - A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
Many scholars assent to this assertion including Stephen Hawking, just to name one. Sir Isaac Newton to name an oldie but goldie.
Columbus had evidence that the earth was not flat. He sailed. He believed. He discovered that he was right.
We won't be able to prove which of us is correct on this side of the horizon of human existance. However, this universe either eternally existed (in some form) or Someone created it.
I've got at least a 50-50 chance of being right just on that evidence alone.
You have one basic argument:
God is not empirically verifiable; therefore, the existance of God is categorically excluded. Any consideration that God may exist is insane (pink elephants, flying carpets, etc) and worthy of ridicule (someone killed God, etc).
That's pretty much what you have to say, although you wrap a lot of WORDS around it.
By the way, I never stated that "Smart people believe in God, therefore God exists."
I argued, "Reasonable people believe in God; therefore, contrary to your standard argument (see above)the fact that I believe in God does not make me categorically unreasonable."
WORDS, can you not see yourself? You are as closed-minded as those you seem to detest so much. Why is that?
WORDS - It had occurred to me that you might be in the path of the hurricane(s), etc. So I was a little worried that your life might be "temporarily disrupted".
I will post more later but wanted to say, "Glad you are back."
No, i did not say, "Smart people believe in God; therefore He exists."
I am saying (pretty clearly, I think) that if believing in God is inherently dumb, how is it that some smart people believe?
YOU have said, in essence, that it is unreasonable to believe in the existance of God.
I pose the question, "If you are correct, then how do you explain that some people who are models of reason -- ie, pre-eminent scientists -- believe in God?"
MY position is that the existance of God cannot be proven. However, the fact that some proposition cannot be proven does not make it untrue or even unreasonable.
There are plenty of reasons to think that God exists... however,you are correct that the matter cannot be empirically verified. If you confine "knowledge" to "that which is empirically verifiable" - then no, whether or not God exists cannot be known.
However, I do not believe that knowledge consists only of that which is empirically verifiable.
That seems to be our dilemma in trying to communicate with each other. I believe the philosophical term is "epistimology", but I could be wrong about that.
Hey, did you see the movie "Contact"? It is somewhat like this conversation.
Post a Comment